Microtek 1800f

[Kirk Gittings]

While I have been very happy with my Epson 4990 and Silverfast (AI 6 Studio). They are amazing technology for the price. I am finding that a 16x20 print from a 4990 is acceptable but pushing the limits of what I consider acceptable resolution. This summer when I was teaching in Chicago I rescanned many negatives on an Imacon and got spoiled. I don't print large, rarely over 16x20, but the Imacon scans are clearly sharper at 16x20 and looked great even at 20x24. So, based on Ted Harris and Michael Mutmanski's recommendation (who's opinions are very informed and I value greatly), I have purchased a Microtek 1800f with SF AI6 Studio which I will start testing this weekend.

Any tricks to using this scanner with 4x5 b&w negs that I should know about?

[David Luttmann]

Kirk,

I could be wrong, but I thought Paul Butzi has this same scanner. Maybe see what he can share as he has used it extensively as well as studied it strengths and weaknesses.

Regards,

[Kirk Gittings]

Dave,

Thanks. I am aware of Paul's contributions. His writtings have been informative. I was just wondering what other tidbits might be out there. For instance on the 4990 and multipassing I have found I get better registration if I do a dummy scan first before the real scan to warm up the negative. Stuff like that.

[Paul Butzi]

Kirk, I think you've already seen the articles on what I do to get the best B&W scans out of the Microtek 1800f that I have.

There's the article on which is better, the Microtek software or Silverfast, at www.butzi.net/articles/scannersoft.htm (http://www.butzi.net/articles/scannersoft.htm)

And there's the article on scanning greyscale negatives in color, the selecting just one color channel, at www.butzi.net/articles/colorscan.htm (http://www.butzi.net/articles/colorscan.htm)

I'd be very interested to know if these things vary unit to unit, model to model, manufacturer to manufacturer, so I hope you'll run similar tests and post the results.

[Kirk Gittings]

Paul,
How large do you print? At what point do you find that you will spring for a drum scan?

[Scott Rosenberg]

i am a relative newb to scanning, but after receiving my 1800F and being pretty disappointed by the initial scans i was getting from b&w negs, i spent about 18 uninterrupted hours trying to improve things. i found that i got the best scans when the neg was placed emulsion side up and scanned as a black and white negative. there is a little more grain when REALLY zoomed in, but there is also far more detail. i look forward to hearing what tricks others came up with.

[Ed Richards]

Kirk,

On the 499o - are you scanning at 4800 and downsampling to 2400, using bicubic sharpening in Photoshop? Have you tried the current version of Vuescan, which lets you scan from one color directly, without having to scan in RGB and then use photoshop to sort out the channel? (This has some value in limiting the file size you have to work with, but that might not matter if you have a Mac with a lot of RAM. On a PC, a 4800 bit RGB scan of 4x5 blows through the 2 gig memory limit for PS.)

[Kirk Gittings]

Ed,

I have tried the first two suggestions, but I probably have not tried the very latest Vuescan if it is younger than 6 or 8 months. I am looking at pre-sharpening sharpness. When it comes to sharpening I am a minimalist, because I don't like that "sharpened look". So I am always looking for a scan that gives me the best raw sharpness.

The 4990 is not being discarded by the way. Many of the 16x20's in my current retrospective (color and b&w) were done on the 4990. I had nothing but rave reviews. But I was not completely satisfied. I am just looking for that next level of 16x20 sharpness on my b&w scans without having to buy an Imacon for 16 grand. The 4990 is a great scanner that we use in our commercial business for high volume scans for architecture clients. These are small files from color negatives, 40MB, done with Digital Ice. Superb.

[Kirk Gittings]

On the 1800f, since you are not scanning thru the glass, is there any reason to wet scan? I have tried that on the 4990 with some good results but it is a pain in the b...

[Brian Ellis]

Scott said: "i found that i got the best scans when the neg was placed emulsion side up and scanned as a black and white negative. "

The first finding is the opposite of the usual advice. Most things that I've read suggest scanning with the emulsion side down and then flipping in the scanner or in Photoshop. I've seen a lot of conflicting information about Scott's second finding. Many knowledgeable people suggest scanning b&w negatives in color but some (e.g. John Paul Caponigro) find no difference and so suggest scanning in black and white to keep the file size down. I mention these two points, not to criticize or argue with Scott but because it illustrates one of the major problems to me with scanning, i.e. there is so much conflicting advice floating around, often from people who are quite knowledgeable.

[Ed Richards]

There have been major improvements in Vuescan over the past 6 months. I moved back to it from Silverfast because of the greater control I get. Bicubic sharpening while downsampling is not really sharpening in the sense that I think you are thinking about. It is just a modification in how the downsampling algorithm handles the averaging of the data points. (This is in CS2 or Picture Window Pro.)

My best workflow is to scan at 4800 DPI, output the raw scan from Vuescan, downsample it in CS2 to 2400 DPI with bicubic sharpening at the default value, invert, then use LEVELS (not curves) to scale the data. I also use 4x multi-sampling, which is supported on the Canon 9950, so it takes 4 data points before incrementing to the next scan point. This gives the effect of 16 data points being averaged for each data point in the final file, which helps noise a lot. Since it is easy to upgrade Vuescan, invest an hour and give it a try. It is not going to turn your scanner into an Imacon, but if it improves your scan even a little it could make a difference in a 16 x 20. Paul and I have kicked around the 1800 compared to the 9950 - it is hard to resolve, but I think you can do as well or better with the 4990 and optimizing the workflow. The Microtech 2500 would be a much more logical step up, but they seem to be discontinued.

[Doug Dolde]

I thinks its strange that there is such a gap between scanners like the Epson 4990 and the high end, ie Imacon, Creo iQsmart, etc.

I would think Nikon could sell a bundle of 9000ED like scanners redesigned to handle 4x5.

[Kirk Gittings]

Mathew,
There is now a Yahoo Forum for wet mounting:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WETMOUNTING/?yguid=197497774

in Files section thaere are some guides. It is really pretty simple.

[Kirk Gittings]

There is another tutorial online somewhere. That explains it well. I will try and remember where I saw it.

It is called "liquid Mounting on your Flatbed Scanner" All I have is a PDF Printout. There in no name or website on it. Maybe someone else will recognise the name. I think it may be from the old Epson3200 yahoo site, but I'm not sure. It is 15 pages.

[Scott Rosenberg]

brian, good catch! i meant to say that i have found the best results from scanning with the emulsion side DOWN. sorry to have muddied the waters.

as to the scan in black and white or scan in color, i found that there was no difference in the final image quality, and the fewer manipulations i have to do in photoshop the happier i am.

so, to clear up my first post:

1. i found that scanning with the emulsion side down yielded scans with slight grain, but much finer detail and required far less sharpening in photoshop.

2. i also found no difference between scanning in black and white or color and then converting. since the resultant files looked the same, i just scan in b&w.

3. i found no difference in scanning on the number 1 or number 2 opening in the 4x5 holder (i thought there might be a sweet spot)

what i do find to be a real pain is scanning 8x10 or 6x6 originals on the glass carrier. they don't always stay flat. has anyone tried placing a very thin piece of glass over an 8x10 original to keep it flat?

scott

[Kirk Gittings]

Mathew,
Email me your mailing address and I will xerox this and send it to you. I can't find any reference to it on line. Maybe if some one would would do a post on Photo.net it will turn up.
Kirk

[Scott Schroeder]

Matt/Kirk,
I just emailed matt the file that explains wet mounting on a 3200.

[Mark McCarvill]

Kirk,

To capture the full tonal range with the 1800f (and other scanners I've used) I scan B&W negatives as positives and in the Silverfast software I invert the curve so it really comes out as a positive.
And I usually first do a low-res scan to determine what kind of contrast curve will ultimately need to be applied and then I redo the scan with that curve using Silverfast.

I also do my final scans in grayscale, with 88% coming from the red channel (unfortunately Silverfast won't let you go higher than that). I find red the least noisy.

Good luck!

[Mark Carney]

I was interested in the liquid mounting technique and found this link to the pdf instructions.

http://homepage.mac.com/mach48/FileSharing13.html

Hope this might be helpful to anyone else that is curious.

Mark

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Mark. That appears to be an updated version of what I have.

[jhogan]

Has anyone tried scanning without the glass on their flatbed (after rigging some sort of accurate carrier support, of course)? Is there any known technical issue that would render this method ineffective? -J

[Ed Richards]

The consumer Microteks - I800/I900 scan below the glass. With the rest I would be scared of hairballs on the sensor.

[europanorama]

if you need help, study the wetmounting-messages. if you stick your head into the sand, you will end up complaining about the fact that there is also a very useful tool around. scanmax-wetmounting holder-system . and propably the best liquid. julio fernandez of canada is a professional chemist. before complaining about that i would study it and contact users. matt, if you do not study and inform yourself before doing you will new get the best results. yes this would cost a lot of time. if not willing, just use digital cameras and be happy. btw: if you have checked how microtek handles guarantee and after guarantee-time, you will end up with epson.